NPR is full of shit garage mahal. Juan Williams is a moderate liberal. He did his gig at NPR and his gig at Fox. Many at NPR were a bit jeaolous of that. A top newscaster at NPR gets $300k and Williams just scored a $2 million gig as a result of all of this.

NPR can hire or fire who it wishes. But to pretend Juan William's comments, which were fairly banal, was the true reason for his firing is a joke. Remember, Williams simply gave his subjective feelings and then went on to say such feelings should not be used to smear all Muslims. NPR wanted to get rid of Williams (and Liasson too) and was looking for reasons to do so. It found it.

I hope NPR loses its public funding. Not due to its context, but because we should not be funding private entities like NPR. I also hear that NPR viewers are calling in and saying they are cutting back on contributing. I have contributed to Public TV and Radio in the past. I am less likely to do so ever this event.

For all those out there screaming that Fox News is a wing of the Republican party, does this not provide evidence that NPR is a wing of the Democrat Party?

At some point, I would actually like to see a news organization with individuals who are knowledgeable and honorable enough to call bullshit when their guests lie... regardless of their political persuasion.

The other part of this is that NPR and other publicly-funded institutions are "patrons of the arts."

Thus, NPR in Albany is a major source of air play for musicians in the jazz, blues, country and other traditional idioms.

The hosts of the music shows at NPR are all far leftists. I know them. The way you get on the music shows at NPR is equal parts, are you a decent musician, and do you agree with the far leftist politics of the hosts.

Musicians vie for air time on these NPR shows by agreeing to appear at rallies and benefits for the far leftist political causes favored by the show's hosts. Not surprising, a competition develops that can only be described as "more leftist than thou." Musicians push themselves to be more and more stridently leftist in order to gain traction.

The slightest deviation from the party line of NPR and the hosts of these shows will, of course, mean that you never appear on these shows.

There is no monetary compensation for appearing on these shows. But, they are important platforms for advertising your public performances.

This process is even more pronounced in the world of film, where NPR also plays an important role in providing a platform to artists.

While I'm all supportive of Juan Williams in this matter, I think Juan is hurting his case by making it about himself, which he has done before, as when he did a guest slot on O'Reilly and used the Talking Points to slash an interviewee who called him a "house negro" two nights before.

While it must hurt him personally and professionally to be summarily fired like that (he was close to tears in his interview with O'Reilly on Thursday night), he must rise above it as a media professional and see the larger issue. He's collateral damage in a larger struggle.

He also doesn't need to carry his own moral water here. He has hundreds of media professionals supporting him from both the right and left. Ultimately, he will see those who did this to him brought down, and Fox News will insure that he always has rent money and food on the table.

Or does "wasn't supposed to" really mean that if it wasn't FOX no one would really mind, and that there wasn't a policy in general not to appear and give opinions on other news networks or even collect a paycheck from other news networks?

If it was a policy then they should have not given permission from the get go, told him no, and fired him if he appeared on FOX.

They didn't do that.

But that doesn't mean that his employers weren't looking for an excuse, does it. It just means that some opinions and some outside news gigs are more equal than others.

Yea it was so bad at NPR that he worked there 10 yrs and didn't say a word about it.--------------------

This Muslim thing in the aftermath of 9/11 and two wars and continued terror threat is turning this country crazy. They need to get a better handle on it -- strike a balance between this country's heritage, rule of law and tolerance. Lefty political correctness will not cut it. Look at Britain or the rest of Europe. Achieving diversity with a pliant group of immigrants who want the same thing embodied in the phrase 'American Dream' is easy but needs a different argument and implementation with people who come here with subversive attitudes that go against the grain of a pluralistic society. The problem America is grappling with is that they can't tell easily among this group who is subversive and who is not. The onus rests on the sub-group that is here for the Dream and diversity to make themselves more vocal and present a different identity from the rest of that group.

Historically, the most important thng for a dictatorial leader is to silence the political opposition. This is exactly what Obama has attempted to do from the first day in office. Certainly, this will have a chilling effect on those less able to land a new job than Juan Williams.

Think of all the Presidents one may have despised: LBJ, Nixon, Carter, Reagan, the Bushes, Cllinton. Did a single one ever mount such an attack on any news organization as Obama has Fox?

Now if you wanted to spend thread after thread defending the Green Bay field goal kicker, that I could understand. Because he is really on your team. You know like Che or Mao or one those type guys there.

So when they miss a field goal in overtime or mess up a revolution in Bolivia or something you have every right to be pissed.

Getting fired is one of those blessings in disguise that often comes from traumatic events. Why would you want to work at NPR knowing the degree to which they adhere to the liberal mindset, and god help you if you stray. So now Williams is getting a nice paycheck and doesn't have to work with a bunch of dilletant blowhards. Win win. Plus, he'll still be able to speak his mind over at FOx and not get smacked down for his beliefs. I'm sure he and Brit Hume will continue to spar back and forth. But no reason he has to work for a weak organization like NPR, and now he doesn't have to.

Well...it's just that...Juan is going full throttle too quickly. His anger seems somewhat contrived, or that he really wouldn't express his anger that forcefully, unless he was throwing out red meat a la Fox news. He's making himself look bad.

Finally, does NPR not recognzie that Juan was in fact saying despite his fears that the govt shouldn't base policy around said fears. He's basically saying that his fears are instinctual but that society or govt shouldt base policy on said fears and scapegoat all muslims.So they fired him by only quoting the part of the speech that makes him look bad (not in my book, I eye everyone I'm on a plane with to see if something looks suspicious). That is truly underhanded considering he was actually arguing the opposite of what they said he was.Defund NPR.

It's funny how long it's taking many people who work inside the left to realize that it's liberalism is honest-to-goodness Stalinism, even down to putting dissidents into insane asylums (isn't that where Sakharov spent a few years?).

Us News and World Report had an essay that said that NPR should reinstate Williams and fire their CEO:

What Williams was actually saying on the O'Reilly show was what MLK said: we ought to judge people by the contents of their character, rather than by the garb in which they doll themselves up. Meanwhile, get the best security screens you can get at the airports, and hope the screeners are doing their job to their utmost.

NPr's stock will go down. Fox will get even higher ratings. Way to go liberals.Juan will work less hours in the week and earn a far higher salary and will get a platform where he can speak his mind with even more openness than he was ever allowed under NPR's party line. Way to go NPR and liberals in general.

And if you look at their list of major sponsors, you can easily see how beholden the company is to the good graces of Wall Street.

I'm not sure what you mean there by "Wall Street." Some of those companies aren't even publicly traded. Perhaps instead you meant "Big Corporation"? I suspect however that those companies have financial as well as altruistic motives for "giving" to NPR. I mean someone or something thing as done a fine job of channeling resources to NPR which might otherwise end up in a general kitty.

Remmeber how Obama and the dems said they wouldn't attend the debates held on FOX. Not to agree with the sentiment, but now is the time that Conservatives start holding liberals to the same standard. They will not appear on networks that carry democrats water or on Liberal networks. Now the sad fact is this includes all networks other than Fox, so it would limit conservatives access to the media. But conservatives should at the very least boycott MSNBC and NPR two of the worst examples of bias there could possibly be. And say "we are for the free and open exchange of ideas, but we are holding liberals to the same standard that they hold us. If fox is going to be black balled, due to bias then we have no interest in appearing on biased channels like MSNBC either. If MSNBC and NPR learn how to get som balance in their coverage, and NPR hires some minorities we will again appear on said networks.".Further, at any debate if there is any moderator who appears on said networks or has a book out on one of the candidates or is clearly biased on way or the other they should make a point to say up front that they object to partisans pretending to be objective moderators. And if any debate is hosted by a Maddow or an Oblermann they should appear and then bow out due to the involvement of said anchor.

Michael wrote:Love the open minded left. So progressive, so open, so willing to listen to all points of view.

IF the left were so open minded they could never call conservatives evil. Because their minds would be open to the possibilities that the conservative might have a point of view of some validity. THe fact that they despise all things about conservatives shows you how close minded they are. The only reason they say they are open minded is because they are taking the counter view to the societies (and it's almost always coming from a socialistic frame of reference), what they really want or DEMAND is that society be open to their views. That's what they mean by open minded. THey have already hve their minds opened to the truth YOU have to open yoru mind to accept that they are right Beucase you don't, you are evil!!!!!!

When you're demonizing free enterprise you're supposed to group all the myriad business of the world not controlled by the government into a single enemy. Don't you ever listen to NPR? If you did you would have learned this lesson!

Garage, every time I think you have reached the bottom of your idiocy, you demonstrate new lows. NPR never tried to restrict Juan Williams from appearing on Fox. They would have had no right to do so -- do they restrict any of their other analysts from showing up on the Sunday talk shows or wherever else they want to speak? Of course not (but then again most of them have white skin . . . ) What NPR did want to do, and what Williams refused, to his credit, to do, is to pretend, when he went on Fox, that he didn't also work for NPR. He would not lie about that, which really ticked NPR off (so uppity of him!)

What on earth makes you imagine that NPR would have any business telling its independent contractors where else they can practice their professions?

Deborah: Juan is going full throttle too quickly. His anger seems somewhat contrived, or that he really wouldn't express his anger that forcefully, unless he was throwing out red meat a la Fox news. He's making himself look bad.

Agreed. I know its easy to get tunnel vision when you're as close to the issue as he is. But, as someone upthread mentioned, he has more Champions than he knows what to do with. I would rather he sit back and let others make his case, appearing only to offer more inside baseball on NPR in a calm rational manner.

But if he wants to belt Vivian and the rest of NPR, I can't really fault him. Like the batter that rushes the pitcher's mound after an obivously deliberate bean, he's going to come out of it looking bad. But I give him a pass.

I think he'll be better in a week, after his lawyers have outlined a path to vengence.

I don't understand why a CEO of a company can get away with releasing to the public the medical history of a fired employee. As snark. It reveals his termination was malicious.

Juan should sue Vivian Schiller and he should sue NPR. Discovery is a wonderful tool.

He has 2 million dollar contract, he's a liberal who has the respect of conservatives, and he'll probably have no trouble selling books from now on. Plus he has a huge platform from which to attack the people who did him wrong. I don't think he'd want to change a thing.

It's completely unsurprising that Vivian Schiller hadn't the character or honor to call Williams and at least apologize to him personally, after suggesting that he was being treated by a psychiatrist. That woman needs to vacate her powerful position. Doubtlessly she'll land a cushy lobbying gig, but she needs to be out of NPR.

Make no mistake, I understand that NPR did not want Juan Williams to appear on Fox; but of course they understood themselves that they couldn't prevent him from doing so, which is why they had to wait for a pretext to fire him. It is hilarious revealing nonsense to claim that he "wasn't supposed to."

What he wasn't supposed to do was to break with the left-wing lockstep and treat conservatives as human beings who are worth communicating with rather than dismissed and demonized. THAT was his real sin.

What on earth makes you imagine that NPR would have any business telling its independent contractors where else they can practice their professions?

He was not supposed to appear on Fox doing anything other than straight news analysis. If Williams doesn't agree with that he is free to work somewhere else. Sorry I took it for granted that Fox isn't news analysis.

See, I still don't discount that Juan WAS seeing a psychiatrist and that NPR HR knew about it.

She wasn't *suggesting* he seek one, she was disclosing his medical history to a public audience. If true, how is that not actionable?

And it looks like HIPAA doesn't apply here:

"Employment Records. The Privacy Rule does not protect your employment records, even if the information in those records is health-related. Generally, the Privacy Rule also does not apply to the actions of an employer, including the actions of a manager in your workplace."

Juan has opened himself to critics that point at his passionate response to being blindsided by his colleagues. But to have remained cool in that circumstance would have made Juan seem to be a phony. Real emotions by real people can work on TV if used sparingly.

Juan also has the "I trust people to be genuine" attitude that works well among friends at the Episcopal Church that he has always attended. Those good people would never hurt anyone for any sin...why should they since forgiveness reigns there. But Juan is finding out what "Scapegoats" have to suffer in network broadcasting where scapegoats are used as often as they can find one.

If you follow several local papers, you start to see a pattern emerge - Americans are altering their behavior when Islam complains about it, whether its Juan saying-that-which-can't-be- spoken or a street cafe that no longer serves bacon because the odor offends neighboring Muslims [seriously, this just happened].

Reminds me of Athens negotiating with Persia and not realizing that they had just agreed to become a Vassal State. War followed because the Greeks didn't respond to demands from their new King. Who rightfully thought they should.

This is the path liberal "tolerance" is taking us. The Left, without realizing it, is telegraphing to Islam that we all accept the role of dhimmi's under Islam.

He has 2 million dollar contract, he's a liberal who has the respect of conservatives, and he'll probably have no trouble selling books from now on.

On the other hand, he's apparently just found out that a vocal segment of the people he's worked with and agreed with for his entire life view him as a tool to advance their own causes, and a tool which must be destroyed now that it has proven to be unreliable.

Juan is going full throttle too quickly.

If only he'd waited a couple of weeks! Then it couldn't have had the same electoral impact, and it could have been dismissed as old news.

Fen,I don't think his anger and hurt are contrived. If you have ever worked for zealot, especially a female zealot, who takes a dislike to you, you would know the pain she can inflict.

It's one thing to be fired, but how about leaving a well respected 10-year employee with his dignity, letting him go to "pursue other projects" instead of calling him out as a bigot, nut or a PR whore?

Ms Schiller (?) Vivian (?) the Female CEO of NPR has I suspect unleashed a whirlwind--Williams gets a multimillion dollar gig at fox, is free to become fox's resident liberal, and make a whole lot of bucks on the lecture circuit--in addition to knowing where the skeleton's are buried at NPR.

I am guessing that Ms Schiller is looking at some big time legal issues--and placing NPR on the list of agencies to defund if the R's come to power in november--At any rate, she has done grievous damage to NPR--not that it doesnt deserve it.

Mr Williams has done, and will continue to do very well--more power to him.

Juan went off the NPR plantation. He espoused views that token negroes like those employed by NPR are not allowed to have. Therefore he had to be punished. Whipping being outlawed, the best they could do was fire him and try to sully his reputation with catty remarks.

Fortunately only a very small, impressionable, lunatic fringe even listens to NPR. Most people have the good sense to see it for what it is.

I just watched it. At first it seemed just blustering, bloviating and angry (faux-trageous) enough to get the thumbs up from Ailes.

Then I thought, well, it sounds like he's got some points to make.

But back to the tone. Does he really intend to produce a never-ending scream-a-thon a la O'Reilly?

If this is where the screaming banshees want to go, let FOX take them. Reactionary conservative outrage can displace the left-wing hypersensitivity of yesteryear while the sensible left-middle goes about building a coalition of sanity.

Black Republicans or at least independents have to be hit and hurt bad by this. First, he was told to keep it between him and his shrink, which must have really hurt. Then he got several million in a new contract. How are you going to keep them down on the farm once they've seen Fox News? Send out the CIA.

NPR employed him for 10 yrs, and suddenly they wake up one day and realize he isn't toeing the line and fire him. And Williams worked there for 10 yrs and suddenly now discovers they are an evil news organization. I'm sure that's how this all went down. Great theories.

bgates:"On the other hand, he's apparently just found out that a vocal segment of the people he's worked with and agreed with for his entire life view him as a tool to advance their own causes, and a tool which must be destroyed now that it has proven to be unreliable."

Compare Vivian Schiller's career to that of Juan Williams. Vivian went from Scarsdale to Smith to CEO of NPR with little apparent accomplishment in between, and no record of intellectual accomplishment.

Senhor Ritmo: so Mr Williams had some (presumabably) substantive points to make--but then "....back to the tone."

Are you suggesting the tone is more important than the substance of points? You may over look the substance of the points to suggest the "tone" is more important--I am reminded of Gov Christie's rejoinder to the correspondent that accused the governor of having a "confrontational tone." Mr Christie destroyed him.

On a narrower note, I was watching Inside Washington this morning, where Nina Totenberg is a long time commenter. One might say that Totenberg appeared to be working under a self-imposed gag order, lest she go the way of Juan Williams. Even Colby King was weighing his words carefully.

On the other hand, Charles Krauthammer was basking in the glow of his additional and unprecedented air time.

Did anyone else catch a similar shutting down of the left on other Sunday morning shows?

Williams could have conveyed frustration and anger with NPR while being a little more professional. Especially if he intends to build a real show, rather than yet another a two-year political broadcasting experiment on Channel Redstate.

I'm sure it felt cathartic for him, and you guys are getting off on it too. But venting and short-term reactions are not the stuff of long-term success. And this applies to every political move we see today.

garage: show me your authority for that, please. His Fox gig pre-dated his NPR gig. The ONLY reporting I have seen regarding Williams and NPR is that they asked him not to identify himself as an NPR commentator when on Fox, and he refused.

If you're referring to that contrived malarkey about the difference between "commentators" and "analysts" in NPR policy, you've got several problems, starting first with, to say the least, selective enforcement -- and then you're going to have to explain how a restriction to "news analysis" is violated in any way by an honest description of personal feelings evoked by news events that includes no policy recommendations or suggestions of any kind that the feelings should lead to public action -- and is quickly followed, in the same discussion, with recognition that it is irrational to apply that feeling to all Muslims. Good luck. If you can come up with something, better forward it to Schiller, fast. She needs it worse than you do.

As for Schiller, I tend to think that she didn't know anything about Williams' medical history and was just being "funny," in that nasty, insulting mode that lefties confuse with humor (like calling people "teabaggers" because you disagree with their political views.) I caught Williams somewhere on one or the other of the news shows saying he hasn't spoken with her often and doesn't know her well, so I doubt she'd have any way to be privy to his personal info.

However, she certainly has managed to convince quite a few people that she DID know something about his medical history -- which, true or not, sounds to me like a fruitful subject for discussion with his lawyer. It is "slander per se" in most US jurisdictions to allege that someone suffers from a mental illness -- which means, the slanderer may be found liable for damages simply for having made the statement, regardless of its truth. For that matter, it's also slander per se to make allegations damaging to someone in their business or profession. This is why most employers with minimal levels of sense make personnel decisions in private and say as little as they can possibly get away with in public as to why employees are terminated -- let alone smirking while they insult hem into a microphone during a public address. That woman needs to be fired, and fast.

Senhor Ritmo--I have been in government and academic bureaucracy for long enough to know that when some one suggests one is not being "professional," they really have no substantive alternative to offer. Now that is just my .02, mind you. As always your mileage may vary.

I think the fact that the Republicans seem willing to run just about anyone nowadays, without really looking into what they're all about or what they've accomplished over the longevity of a career, might come back to haunt them, Roger.

Right now you guys are in an anti-establishment mood. I get that. I also get that there's a lot more establishmentarianism (re: the seniority of Republican pres nominations) in that party against which to rebel. Combine that with the envy of Obama coming from nowhere to capture the electorate and... voila! There must be a magic formula in that.

But you're still going to have to find a way to build a governing coalition.

The Obamaites are having the same problem but they've got a two-year head-start on figuring out how they want to go about this, and a lot less baggage.

Everyone seems happy enough with Williams' $2 million, Roger. We should just take that and assume that as his compensation for whatever left-wing outrage he has suffered.

If he were a more serious journalist, I'd assume there would be more things worth talking about, and not letting this get overshadowed by as he kicks off a new phase of his career. Unless he's just not got that much journalistic merit to offer other than as a scapegoat/martyr.

I suppose in a couple years we'll find out. FOX gave shows to Alan Keyes and Michael Savage, too, you know.

No. In no way am I mistaking what is said with the tone or pitch used. Emotionally laden commentary is a daily occurrence on all of the cable news networks. A well-modulated voice does not mean it isn't happening.

garage: show me your authority for that, please. His Fox gig pre-dated his NPR gig. The ONLY reporting I have seen regarding Williams and NPR is that they asked him not to identify himself as an NPR commentator when on Fox, and he refused.

Probably had to do more with Williams constantly siding with Fox News over NPR, and always running to FIX News and Bill O'Reilly's defense every time O'Reilly would say something stupid about blacks. Which is often. Or it could be from Williams badmouthing NPR because they passed on the Bush interview, because NPR wasn't comfortable with handpicking the interviewer [Bush would only allow Williams as the interviewer]. When Lettermen famously jabbed O'Reilly, Williams again came rushing to O'Reilly's defense and compared Letterman to a serial killer.

Senhor Ritmo--you will have to provide a whole lot more of hard data to convince me that any sitting politician has some kind of track record of accomplishment to convince me that your thesis has merit.

I am not sure exactly what the preparatory course in politics is for a candidate--the traditional course has been poly sci, law and some type of experience at a minor governmental level--I would submit, and you may of course disagree, that perhas a desire to effect change may be as important.

That said I do agree there is a decidedly antiestablishment sentiment--the GOP has already felt it; and I submit the dems are about to experience it in 10 days--

Ironically mr Obama ran on what I think was an antiestablishment sentiment--and had he the competence to implement it he might have done bett3er than he is now.

I would like Mr. Williams to know that men dressed in Arab garb are least likely to be dangerous. He's a lousy profiler, getting all shook up by clothes. For an analyst, you'd expect him to know that airplane hijacker must first board successfully and therefore would no do anything to draw attention to themselves. Silly Juan. I'd much rather sit next to a guy in Arab garb than next to a drunk, as I have, or next to a cow who hogs all the armrests and keeps accidentally invading my space, as I have, or even a relative who I love that nonetheless thinks that my leg space is theirs to use for storage, as I have.

To better understand history, and his role in it, Obama invited a group of presidential scholars to dinner in May in the living quarters of the White House. Obama was curious about, among other things, the Tea Party movement. Were there precedents for this sort of backlash against the establishment? What sparked them and how did they shape American politics? The historians recalled the Know-Nothings in the 1850s, the Populists in the 1890s and Father Charles Coughlin in the 1930s. “He listened,” the historian H. W. Brands told me. “What he concluded, I don’t know.”

Senhor Ritmo: I would be most interested in whom you think to be a serious journalist in the last 30 years. Frankly I see none on either the left of the right. I did like Walter Lippman but that was before my time, and I did like HL Mencken, but his antisemitism puts cedarford to shame. Regretably, IMO, the pulitzer prises give us no guidance either.

What sparked them and how did they shape American politics? The historians recalled the Know-Nothings in the 1850s, the Populists in the 1890s and Father Charles Coughlin in the 1930s. “[Obama] listened,”

I dunno. I'm not one to really be taken with journalists. I've enjoyed watching Charlie Rose in the past, and I'm sure there are others who excel at one of the few useful formats in broadcast journalism left: Interviewers. I just saw something with Anderson Cooper that I thought was good. Other than that, I think it's coming down to who are the relevant bloggers. That's just the way it is.

Television is the old medium. Get used to it, guys. Just like AM radio was. You can still do certain things with it politically but it's harder to convey relevance when your mastery is limited to yesterday's medium.

Re Mr Obama's confab with historians to "understand." Frankly the NYT piece sounds most like a naval gazer--now if the white house were willing to publish a transcript then we could all judge for ourselves what was said and how it was received.

What, if anything, does the Times' interest in doing the piece have to do with what historians have had to say regarding the Tea Party movement and convey about it to Obama, or his interest in meeting with them?

That just seems like an incredibly confused conclusion to take away from that.

Re re the historians visit to the white house--one would have thought that Mr Obama had some basic understanding of the whiskey rebellion, the anti-federalists, the Jacksonian rebellion, the anti-slavery moverment, the rise of the progressives, the KKK of the 20s, Huey Long, Father Coughlan, the Henry Wallace, and a host of other establishment movements.

What I find striking about this confab is the the President of the Uninted States needed historians to explain it to him--Presumably Sean Wilenz and Howard Zinn were also in attendence. :)

Which, of course, is why I suggest the confab was a puff piece. Other than that we have to assume Mr Obama is woefully ignorant of American history.

I understand that in Tea Party land the kind of authority that led the Republican party in the past is now out the window, but that doesn't mean that others react to all knowledge and people who have it the way the French revolutionaries did.

Ritmo: Where on this thread did I once express anything remotely resembling "outrage"?

You are posting about it here, same as us. Really, we need to get you a mirror.

So talking about something makes you that thing? Talking about something means you are that thing?

I guess I shouldn't talk about lions, tigers and bears or else I might magically become one and rip you to shreds. Lol.

Senhor Ritmo--you missed my point, I fear--had these historians put their thoughts on a transcript then we could see what they said. We have, at least according to the narrative the aide memoir of only one participant. Thin gruel indeed.

Howard Zinn was presumably dead by the time that the described event took place.

Also, I don't see why a very busy president who's accomplished so much legislatively and in terms of crisis control in 1.5 years is wrong or ignorant for seeking input from people who are expected to have a lot of practical and in-depth knowledge of something. The festive Tea Party fervor has made a lot of people enamored of the idea that they're all experts in everything (well, with the exception of biology and geophysics). Do you really think they all are, Roger?

I think most Americans want someone who knows where to find knowledge, rather than someone who finds knowledge to be suspect and anathema to their cowboy image.

What are your thoughts on Benjamin Franklin? How did you come to know what you know about him?

What are your thoughts on the California Gold Rush? Again, how did you come to know what you know about it?

I like Brands' work. You don't have to but I guess that's an affordable luxury when, like in the French Reign of Terror, The Bolshevik Revolution and in The Tea Party, history (and science) is decreed to be inconvenient at best and irrelevant at worst.

Senhor Ritmo--I have never suggested the tea party folks have any special claim on knowledge--nor do I believe the sitting incumbents have any special claim on knowledge other than the arcane rules that govern the legislative process. I think you have submitted a red herring for inspection.

There's no way I can address yoru last point, because I dont know what most americans think on the subject, not do you.

Now you have expressed some interest in the classics from time to time, and I give you the case of the philosopher kings--then men of gold--in Plato's republic. You may want to read Aristotles critique of the Plato's proposition wherein he suggests absolute knowledge is not a suffienct basis to rule. (The Politics).

"The article says a group of historians advised Obama. x was said, which you quoted. An then one of the historians (the one you appeal to) was quoted. It doesn't say that your Authority gave the analysis you quoted."

Read it again with a more careful eye. Larry Summers was also quoted in the piece, you might as well have linked to his works as your Appeal to Authority. It would have just as much weight. None.

Roger, I think the conversation diverged from being two oppositional arguments and just into different points or ideas.

Regarding red herrings and other fallacies, though, crude ignorance doesn't make one any more fit to rule than absolute knowledge. Just because knowledge isn't enough, that doesn't mean that the less knowledge the better. Does it?

In the first month after his inauguration, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt called together a group of eminent historians to discuss how other presidents had dealt with the depression.

One noted that Thomas Jefferson worked on his depression after the death of his wife by having sex with his slaves. That James Buchanan worked on his depression after the death of his "close friend" Vice President William Rufus King by raising rare clumber spaniels and eating Indian food. President Abe Lincoln sought solace from his depression engendered by his marriage to Mary Todd by telling jokes and drinking laudanum. And finally Woodrow Wilson had a stroke to end his depression after failing to get the League of Nations approved by Congress.

Since none of these alternatives appealed to FDR he decided to turn to socialism and taking over the banks just to take everyone’s mind off of the depression. Sound familiar?(The More Things Change, The More They Stay The Same, Doris Kearns Goodwin, Harvard University Press, 2010)

I do agree with Fen's point about appeal to authority--that appears to me to be the logical fallacy involved in invoking the NYT piece.

Historians are hardly dispassionate observers of the human scene, although they generally rely on more substanstantive sources than most.

One of my favorite classical historians was Tacitus, except his historical analysis was, IMO, marred because he was a republican who chose to cast the empire in the worst possible light--albeit with GREAT prose. Gibbon whose view was shaped by the role of the church in history. Zinn (who as you suggest is deceased) by his world view of repression by the powerful; Marc Bloc, that great historian of medieval europe whose focus was ecnomics of feudalism. Morrison, whose history of columbus is IMO magestiral--but all historian suffer from the same disease that In short, no one historian has a corner on truth and regretably some even make it up.

Bottom line--we are all victims of our world view which becomes the filter by which we judge historians. In short--interesting for discussion but will not provide any earthshaking truths

Why do you trust FOX so much more than you do NYT? It's not like the future of life on the planet or whatever hinges on that piece. If you speculate that Brands was unfairly lumped in and the short conclusions edited to the point of erroneous, I don't find that to be very persuasive of anything. Your "heresay" is no more authoritative than what was stated by the Times.

The guy met with a group of historians. What's the big deal? You apparently think the Tea Parties are a very precious thing and will make invaluable contributions to American government - particularly in their current form. I seriously question that assumption - as I think many others do. Where do you want to go with this, exactly?

Now, unless Brands was not quoted thus, this clearly shows that he was with the other historians who conferred with Obama. I'm assuming he didn't put a glass up to a closed door and listen in. I'm also assuming that he didn't bug the room.

I'm assuming that, as a respected historian, he isn't making shit up. I'm assuming that he's not lying in saying that Obama listened to the group of historians that included himself.

Do you not see any shortcomings with this line of questioning? Does it really seem like a plausible thing to question? If you really are paranoid enough to question things that seem downright obvious, clear and not contested, do you at least have an alternate theory? (Conspiracies included.)

I slowly difted away from the NYTs when I realized it was omitting information that the others weren't.

FOX came along much later. They make me cringe sometimes, but I need an information broker that gives me *both* sides of the issue.

And so far, they are still the only broker in town that does so.

FOX is fine to have along and like Mara Liasson (I suppose) I'm not threatened by them that there's a contrarian and that now the conservatives have their news establishment.

At the same time, one of the things they do that make me cringe is to hammer on about details that don't seem incredibly relevant - building a case where there isn't much of one. I guess that's the downside to not omitting anything.

Ummm Ritmo: some times you throw the high hanging curve: what you think is irrelevant, may not be what a large percentage of the population deem as relevant. When you do that you are sliding into Pauline Kael territory (even though she never said that)

We will NEVER be blessed with absolute knowledge, any more than we will know what we believe to be crude ignorance. I both polar cases, the judgment is made on personal beliefs.

In an attempt to resolve what has been called a "faith versus knowledge" conundrum, I ran across the website and book of an interesting author today named Rebecca D. Costa. I found what she had to say about insight to be a little overdone, but pertinent and worth listening to.

Now, unless Brands was not quoted thus, this clearly shows that he was with the other historians who conferred with Obama.

Brands: "Thanks for the callback. Melvin and a few others went over to chat with the President about the Tea Party. When he got back, Melvin was estatic. They spent hours the topic with Obama and he listened"

The problem, Ritmo, is that over and over again, by comparing the NYTs work with other Information Brokers [and this included even WaPo], I found that the NYTs routinely omitted key information that was necessary to fully understand the story.

You're only as good as your information. Its a shame, because I enjoy their writers, but I might as well be reading fiction. I'd rather use that time on another information broker that presents the opposing pov as fairly and accurately as is possible in today's environment.

And so I dropped the NYTs for Instapundit, Steyn and Yon. And I chose FOX to fill the job that CNN once had.

Ritmo: You ask an intersting question regarding the trustworthiness of Fox versus the NYT. I watch Fox and I read the NYT daily. I read important articles twice, the second time to observe whether or not there are any named sources at all. It is amazing that the first reading is not enough, I read carefully, of so I think, and yet it takes that second go through to note that some or most could be invented. Rarely on Fox do I see a news segment where there are not sources that are named and rarely, if ever, do I watch and hear references to unnamed sources. Unless, of course, they are citing the NYT.

I've enjoyed reading Mark Steyn before. He can be entertaining and insightful and I enjoyed watching him take the case for free speech right to the Canadian tribunals charging him with abusing it. He did a good job with that and also goes into a lot of worthwhile details with other newstories he's covering.

I've enjoyed Hugh Hewitt, as well. But mostly in the past. I think he's more open-minded than he likes to show.

I don't like listening to NPR's news coverage, but that's mostly because Robert Siegel's voice (All Things Considered) sounds like his mouth is all crunched up like those WB cartoon characters after eating a bunch of alum.

I don't like Terry Gross, and listen to Marty Moss-Coane with a grain of salt but occasionally Terry's interview subjects are worth listening to -- Tracey Morgan for instance.

When they do stories on reformed left-wing radicals I actually found that coverage kind of funny. Especially when they give it such a serious tone and musical background to a guy figuring out that violence wasn't going to bring about some left-wing/anarchistic revolution.

Micheal: I read the NYT daily. I read important articles twice, the second time to observe whether or not there are any named sources at all. It is amazing that the first reading is not enough, I read carefully, of so I think, and yet it takes that second go through to note that some or most could be invented

I think its interesting that we got to the same result through different angles.

I'm looking for the other side of the story, you're looking for transparent sourcing.

Now Juan has descended into the Fox hole of whining. So you got fired. So Fox hired you for $2million. Bite the hand that fed you for 10 years and, when Fox is tired of your "liberal" (which he's not) views, you will want to go back to NPR to gain some much needed cred. Now I don't approve of his firing and whoever did so should be fired themselves. But, but, but, becoming a rallying cry for Fix does not buy you any credibility with the people who listened to you on both stations.

I love you, Juan, when you did Talk of the Nation. I loved you as a commentator on NPR and on Fox, but now you are done for me.

BTW, I will not stop listening to NPR. I many never contribute to them again but I will continue to listen to their programs. Better than anything else on the radio.

"Now I don't approve of his firing and whoever did so should be fired themselves. But, but, but,.."

But he's not really a liberal anyway, but he's biting the hand that fed him instead of being sufficiently grateful, but... what? But, but, but... he didn't behave himself. But he didn't conform. But he didn't understand the rules. But there has to be a way to make this his fault.

But, but, but... if we have to define "center left" even farther over just to make Juan "not a liberal" we WILL do that.

Fen wrote:And so I dropped the NYTs for Instapundit, Steyn and Yon. And I chose FOX to fill the job that CNN once had.

I dropped the times because I couldnt' justify wasting so much paper for such limited information, that I couldn't get elsewhere. And since I'm looking out for the environment, I figure it's better to not be so selfish with resources that I justify the printing of the equivalent of a phone book every sunday just so I can get an arts and leisure section that is totally provinicial and elitist. My mom buys the Times and literally just does the crossword puzzle. The rest gets bagged in the trash or lines the birdcage (not that we have birds but if we did that's where it would go).I'll sometimes read the main section and then check out the Best Buy circular and maybe check out some movie reviews. Of course I could also go to the Best Buy website and see the deals,and go to the IMDB and see the reviews of all the papers and critics. So again, why buy the times.Even if it wasn't so elitist, it is no longer an efficient means of diseminating info and it's in fact selfish of the Times. Of course if I like a book I'll stil read it, so the inefficiency of the medium is not that big a factor if it's something I enjoy. But unless you live in an ivory tower, most of the Times material is going to be something you don't relate to.If you took Newsday, The Daily News, The Post, and the Village Voice and threw them into one product it still wouldn't be as big as the Times in terms of volume. But you'd get better editorials, better news reporting and better classified ads, not to mention the sex ads in the back of the voice. It's' time for the Times to give up the goat and retire in grace.

I love the argument that Juan Williams is not really a liberal. You could have fooled me, considering he usually takes the liberal position on Fox when arguing with Brit Hume. The only way that he is not a iberal is that he is actually not as snarky and tries to argue principled position and doesnt come across as as much of smug prick as a lot of liberals. Brit Hume usually wipes the floor with him, but thats becauase it's hard to defend a lot iof liberal positions. But give Juan credit, he seems like a nice fair guy.What is also so funny about the argument is, if he was never really a liberal then why did NPR hire him in the first place and keep him on the payroll for so long?

I once worked with a woman who had a Soviet studies degree. She didn’t know about Stalin’s attempts to obtain a warm water port. I got a D in Russian History and I knew more about Soviet Studies than she did. I think Vivian Schiller is another case of credentialed, but not educated.

But would you rather have them omitting nothing or would you rather have them omitting information that would make the case. I would rather have too much information because I can always cut off what I don't need. If I don't get the information then I am making decisions as the leftists do, without needed information.

==================All too many Althouse posters lazily believe in the "single person moving all events" theory of current events and history.

Like Vivian Schiller is the only possible mover of events at NPR.That all Iran's policies stem from one man, Ahmadinejad.That Bush or bin Laden "caused" all global terror.

It is stupid.We honestly don't know if Williams was kicked out by Vivian, another single individual, or if it was a committee of connected liberal and progressive Jewish interests that generated a GroupThink decision similar to Shirely Sherrods canning (a synergy of Breitbart, NAACP bigots, Fox, a Deputy Counsel in the White House, and of course panicked Ag officials getting heat from all the other parties.)

What we know about the NPR firing besides Demonizing progressive Jew Vivian Schiller as the ONLY one having anything to do with it.

1. The Democrat Left has long waged a campaign to purge evil Fox from Obama briefings, trips, discouraging Fox celebs on TV shows, book tours, campus speeches. All too many loyal Dem staffers at NPR and PBS and Corp for Public Broadcasting saw Williams as an enemy to get rid of.

2. Williams firing came the day NPR announced they accepted 1.8 million from George Soros to create more staff jobs for out-of-work Dem liberal arts grads.

3. Progressive Jew Emily Weiss was the one that fired him. Though she said "the final decision was higher". She wouldn't meet with him to discuss it, probably because it was her initial recommendation to fire him.

4.Weiss is married to uber-connected DC lawyer-rabbi-lobbyist David Saperstein. The invocation speaker at the 2008 Democrat Convention. Head of reform Jews and serving on boards of several NGOs that are liberal or Muslim-friendly. With ties to the White House, media, and many Muslim groups - where he is a passionate supported of the Ground Zero Mosque and stamping out Islamophobia. He has frequently appeared on panels with CAIR and other Islamoid factions - arguing against Muslim profiling.

5. Williams spoke Monday night. By late Tuesday morning CAIR and other Muslims were in contact with upper management, in meetings at NPR, discussing Islamoid demands to fire him. Who got them the juice to sweep in like that? A phone call to Rabbi Saperstein? Or Muslim sypathizers within NPR, CPB? The member stations?

6. When progressive Jews strike out against an incorrect-thinking black man, they like to have their asses covered against "counter charges they are racist". That means Jews in the media have already consulted with Jesse, Al, some "venerated Civil Rights leader" that gives them the moral authority to attack and belittle a Alan Keyes or Michael Steele - even a prominent black entertainer.It also helps if the Jews in management get other black employees to sign on to the Purge of incorrect thought.It's similar in academia. You need black cover before a black employee is purged on performance or "insubordination" grounds.Juan Williams knows how the game is played, and no doubt wonders what prominent blacks green-lighted his booting. Many he likely took as friends. It is also a signal that his firing was planned a long time begore this - possibly even before Schiller took her recent job. As Emily Weiss and others felt out prominent blacks to have their backs if they "got rid of the Fox guy" - that takes time..but no doubt it was easier after blacks duly parrotted Dem Leaders party line that Fox was an evil loyal Dems must defeat. But getting the black leader and perhaps Gwen Ifil/Travis Smiley "green light" obviously took more than a day.

it was great up until the "have you no shame, madam!" part. that kind of phrase, a riff on the "how dare you, sir!" attack is soooooo cliche. yet both o'reilly and olbermann love it. williams should avoid it. you can say the same thing differently and more effectively

it was great up until the "have you no shame, madam!" part. that kind of phrase, a riff on the "how dare you, sir!" attack is soooooo cliche. yet both o'reilly and olbermann love it. williams should avoid it. you can say the same thing differently and more effectively